Y’know, to follow the Opie Edwards For Pa Of The United States campaign, you get the distinct impression that he knows he doesn’t have a soap-dropping new convict’s chance in the communal prison shower.  Take his latest two public appearances as examples.

Here’s what he had to say after congressional Democrats opted for an operational pause in their war against the War Against Islamic Fundamentalism:

“Conceding to the President on full funding for the Iraq war is a serious mistake. It is time to force an end to this war, and the only way for Congress to do that is to use its funding power. Any compromise that funds the war through the end of the fiscal year isn’t a compromise at all, it’s a capitulation. As I have said repeatedly, Congress should send the President the same bill he vetoed again and again until he realizes he has no choice but to start bringing our troops home.”

Ah, the boldness of a man no longer in an accountable position.  You could almost forget that he voted for Operation Iraqi Freedom himself.  At least he hopes you will.

First, he talks big about “forcing” an “end to the war” (i.e. surrender) by “using [Congress’] funding power.  That sounds, to the logical ear, like a call for straight-forward, no-frills, immediate defunding for anything more than the logistical cost of a crash withdrawal.  Yet that’s not what Opie goes on to call for, instead insisting upon a legislative tantrum, as though sending the same rejected special appropriations bill up time after time after time wouldn’t be a PR Godsend to the White House and the GOP remnant.

If the definition of insanity is trying the same failed strategy indefinitely in the hopes of it magically succeeding - ironically, in essence the very barb Donks hurl at the President on a daily basis - then Edwards must really have Bryl Cream for brains.

Or else he pandering to the nutroots.  Which would doom him in a general campaign even if it were possible for him, or anybody else, to deny Hillary! her payback for a forty years of enduring life as a pair of matrimonial Depends.

Think his National Press Club remarks today weren’t opportunistic?

[The terror threat level has] even been used by this White House as a partisan weapon to bludgeon their political opponents. Whether by manipulating threat levels leading up to elections, or by deeming opponents “weak on terror,” they have shown no hesitation whatsoever about using fear to divide.

This from a man whose campaign lynchpin is bleating about “two Americas.”

As president, I will close Guantanamo Bay, restore habeas corpus, and ban torture.

Um, didn’t Senator McCain already do most of that?  Wouldn’t Opie have to dramatically expand the definition of “torture” (again) to include “reality TV,” YouTubes of Edwards at the beauty parlor, and taking happy hour away from Ted Kennedy?  Does anybody even remember what torture actually is anymore?  Maybe we should have kept Saddam Hussein around, just to serve as the “before” guy.

The jihadis certainly haven’t forgotten.  They’re quite good at it, whether via internet beheadings or Islamikaze attacks.  And Opie would turn them loose to once more ply their trade with unfettered abandon, and his “administration” none the wiser to any of it.  After the next 9/11, I imagine public defenders will be the vanguard of his “first responders.”

“As president, I will only use offensive force after all other options including diplomacy have been exhausted, and after we have made efforts to bring as many countries as possible to our side.”

As president, Edwards would never use offensive force.  Or defensive force.  Or any force at all.

No need for him to be so verbose about it - or infringe on Jimmy Carter’s gimmick.

“But I will also remove any civilian or military officer who stifles debate or simply tells me what I want to hear.”

Eh?  He wants neocon advisers?  Those should be some fun conversations.

As president, I will carefully assess the post-Iraq threat environment and consult with military commanders to determine the exact number of troops we need and where.

Which he has already as much as said he will never deploy, even if he picks advisors who tell him to do so.  Heck, why bother assessing the “post-Iraq threat environment” at all if, for all intents and purposes, he’ll be far too busy constructing the Dickensian squallor with his economic policies that he’ll pretend to address with his “anti-poverty” polices?

Those neocon advisers Opie hires had better catch him on his salon days.  It’ll be the only time he’ll be a captive audience.  Maybe they’ll call it “the Palmolive Maneuver.”

Bet it won’t work on Hillary!  Far as I know, snakes don’t need to be washed.

“I hope any Republican that votes for this pays the price.”

If the YouTube video does not appear, go here to VIEW

Who is Afraid of Debate?
John rocks on this: Political suicide?

And check out  The Conservative Grapevine 

Tom DeLay: A dangerous sellout on immigration. 

Erik Svane, No Pasaran blogger and man-about-town in Cannes, and his co-blogger U*2, are following Michael Moore’s Sicko at the Festival, so don’t miss their posts.

Erik has two books in French that are soon to be translated into English: La Banniere Etalee (sorry about the punctuation marks - they don’t show well on my server), and General Leonardo, which you can purchase at the above links.

Erik’s publisher, Editions Underbahn, also publishes September 11 Wall Street Sonnets by Eugene Schlanger.

In yesterday’s podcast Erik and I discussed Nicolas Sarkozy’s new cabinet. (It was approximately 14 minutes into the podcast. We had phone connection problems prior to that). My question was, in appointing socialists like Bernard Kouchner to his cabinet, would Sarko be setting himself up into a situation similar to Chirac’s when Jospin was Prime Minister, where Chirac and Jospin spent all their time bickering?
Erik stated that appointing Kouchner as Foreign Minister, is part of Sarkozy’s stratey to win the legislative elections. Sarko has to be open in order to win, and is doing a great job. Kouchner’s the Socialist Party’s most popular member.

Kouchner was not the front-runner because he appeared too pro-American. As Erik puts it,

“The world did really well in getting Sarkozy as President and Kouchner as Foreign Minister.”
…
“Bernard Kouchner has been to Biafra, to Bangladesh, to Saddam’s Iraq; he wrote the foreword to The Big Black Book of Saddam Hussein, a 600-page opus on Saddam Hussein’s crimes.”

Doing this podcast was a lot of fun, as Erik was talking from his cell phone en route to downtown Cannes. I could only wish we could have enjoyed the scenery, too.

You can listen to the podcast here.

Cross-posted at Fausta’s blog

After reading this article I began to wonder if I’d missed the 2008 election.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton prodded the Pentagon Wednesday to plan quickly for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq — even as she refused to say how she plans to vote on a critical war spending bill.

“We’ve been hearing that there is either no or very limiting planning for withdrawal. Withdrawal is very complicated. If they’re not planning for it, it will be difficult to execute it in a safe and efficacious way,” the Democratic presidential candidate said.

“I want our surrender plan now,” is what I hear her saying.

Clinton now wants the Pentagon to brief lawmakers on their withdrawal contingency plans.

“If no such plans exist, please provide an explanation for the decision not to engage in such planning,” Clinton wrote to Gates.

Of course it’s hard to say what she really means, even if you’re a member of her own party.

Last week, after voting to advance a bill that would force withdrawal by March 2008, Clinton said she would not commit to supporting that deadline. Hours later, she said she would in fact support that deadline, prompting one Democratic challenger, Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, to question what her position actually is.

I know this will be lost on the presumptive front-running democrat candidate, but wouldn’t it be wise to start by achieving victory? I’m just asking.

Cross posted from bRight&Early.

Kate O’Malley, columnist for Human Events Online and proud fellow Eagle, has a great column up this morning. The article explores the motives behind people like Dan Frasier, an antiwar activist who has produced T-shirts with the slogan “Bush Lied, Soldiers Died,” on top of a list of soldiers who have given their lives in Iraq.

He is making money off these fallen heroes, although according to his website, he isn’t really a very good capitalist, “In fact, it is not clear that the shirts have generated any profits at all. Much of the first batch of shirts was sold at a deep discount. The shirts were complex to design and expensive to produce. The cost of the shirts has been kept as low as possible to encourage sales and spread the important message. Of course, this product is not meant to be a statement on behalf of the families or the fallen soldiers” said Frasier in an open letter on his website.

Okay, I will admit that I was not an economics major, so maybe I am missing something here. The shirt is not making much a profit because our friend Dan wants to encourage sales to spread the important political message he believes in, but the message is somehow not meant to be a statement on behalf of the men and women who appear on his shirt. So Dan isn’t doing this for the money, he is doing it to spread a political message. So this isn’t actually a product as much as it is an advertising tool.

Arrrghhh….my head hurts. Those rascally lefties! Dan isn’t a capitalist after all, he is a political activist! Darn, I knew it was too good to be true.

The article is sarcastic and amusing, yes, but it’s also heart wrenching. Katie skillfully reminds us of what the results of the left’s version of “free speech” are.

Frasier may not be a good capitalist, but he is an accomplished grave robber. He is using dead soldiers, soldiers who can’t protect themselves, to further his own personal agenda. He can do so without the censure of these men and women because they are dead. They are unprotected, unable to be heard, unable to approve or dispute his use of their names. They can not be interviewed on the nightly news to counter his association of their life’s work with his personal cause. They can not call a lawyer to demand the removal of their names nor can they demand a share of his meager profits because, as we have established, he is not a very good capitalist.

It is left to the families of these fine men and women to pursue justice. It is not enough that wives and children and parents must attend funerals and empty closets of personal effects. They must now bear the injustice of a political activist aligning their loved ones with a belief and for a cause that they had no opportunity to endorse or dispute.

Cindy Sheehan may be the most well-known grave robber right now, but she is not the only one. People like Dan Frasier, Gael Murphy, and many more are making money and (excuse the pun) capitalizing on the sacrificial love of American soldiers and Marines.

How amazing would it be to live in a nation that wholeheartedly supports her troops and their mission? How incredible would it be to know that your countrymen, to a man, love and honor you for the sacrifices you make? How much easier would it be to approach the battlefield, knowing that those you defend know in their hearts every single day that your job is noble, it is amazing, it is honorable?

Someday, perhaps we will live in that country again. Hope springs eternal.

Powered by ScribeFire.